The Incomprehensible Nature of the Origin of Life Melanie Davila That theory is worthless. It isn't even wrong! —Wolfgang Pauli Abstract The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a highly debated topic in the philosophy of science. Pseudoscience threatens to not only tarnish the integrity of true science, but also to poison the mind of the everyday citizen. Although the line between science and pseudoscience is often blurred, it is crucial that the scientific community acknowledges the presence of pseudoscientific characteristics in certain theories. Moreover, the origin of life on Earth has proved to be elusive to mankind. Although humans have attempted to answer this question for thousands of years, extremely limited progress has been made regarding the matter. In this research paper, I will confirm the widely agreed upon notion that intelligent design is a pseudoscience, but I will also propose that scientific theories regarding abiogenesis might be unscientific. Ultimately, the origin of life on Earth proves to be a subject that not even science can attain a significantly firm grasp upon. Introduction Debates regarding the pseudoscientific nature of theories are prevalent within the intellectual community and have shown their presence in legal issues. In many cases, it is indeed difficult to determine if an idea should be considered true science. I will argue that intelligent design is pseudoscientific. I will also argue that although theories of abiogenesis possess multiple pseudoscientific characteristics, the field of abiogenesis is merely unscientific due to its young nature. The ability to acknowledge the pseudoscientific qualities of intelligent design and abiogenesis is crucial to our ability to differentiate between scientific, pseudoscientific, and unscientific theories in other areas of exploration. My research is significant because there is a lack of public figures who have denoted theories of abiogenesis to be unscientific in nature. It is peculiar that the human race cannot provide a reasonable response to a question that has been everlastingly pondered upon. If pseudoscience continues to become widespread, uninformed humans might lose the ability to distinguish a true scientific theory from a merely plausible thought. On the other hand, if humans begin to recognize the prevalence of pseudoscience in society they may reject science and consequently, humans will cease to appreciate the purity of true science. Genuine science is the result of the pursuit of knowledge solely for the sake of intellectual pleasure. In society, the scientist is a highly respected figure. Unfortunately, humans tend to ignore the questionable nature of claims made by scientists so one must examine scientific claims before accepting them. 69 In Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Karl Popper analyzes the progression of knowledge. Karl Popper is a well-known philosopher of science and has undeniably had an impact on our ideas of scientific understanding. In his text, Popper proposes that satisfaction of the falsifiability criterion is a critical component of science. A theory does not need to be verifiable in order to be considered scientific; however, it must be able to be proved false through scientific means. He also discusses the problematic nature of vagueness in scientific theories. Furthermore, in Progress as a Demarcation Criterion for the Sciences, Paul Quay discusses the several modes of progress. In this article, Quay insightfully proposes that more than one demarcation criterion is needed and suggests that lack of progress is a distinguishing characteristic of pseudoscience. Analysis of these framing texts will provide multiple demarcation criteria between science and pseudoscience. In the first section of this text, “Science vs. Pseudoscience: Demarcation Criteria”, I will explore the roles of falsifiability, progress, and vagueness as demarcation criteria. Throughout second section of this text, “Intelligent Design as a Pseudoscience”, I will expose the pseudoscientific characteristics of intelligent design. Afterwards, in the section entitled “The Unscientific Nature of Theories of Abiogenesis”, I initiate a discussion involving the pseudoscientific characteristics of abiogenic theories (more specifically, the primordial soup hypothesis and iron-sulfur world theory), but then suggest the field of abiogenesis is currently unscientific. In the fourth section of this text, “The Implications of the Science v. Pseudoscience Debate”, I discuss the extent to which demarcation is necessary. Science V. Pseudoscience: Demarcation Criteria There are numerous distinguishing characteristics of science, including falsifiability, measurable progression, and the presence of theories without excessive vagueness. Falsifiability is a more reliable criterion for demarcation than verifiability. According to Popper, it is not problematic to “obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations” (36). A proponent of a scientific theory will have difficulty remaining unbiased in their methods of research and may produce fallacious results. Therefore, the confirmation of a theory is an unreliable method of demarcation simply due to the innocent yet detrimental tendencies of human nature. Pseudoscience is “not an impartial search for truth, but rather the validation of a claim, a fixed idea, supportable only by misuse or distortion of any relevant data” (Ecker 171). Pseudoscience aims to be verifiable and neglects the fact that humans are imperfect and 70 can only confirm theories through imperfect means. Pseudoscience is problematic because it provides society with a false impression of what true science is and suggests that scientific discoveries are the ultimate truth. The falsification of a theory is more reliable since the theory will most likely be examined by scientists with contradicting perspectives. The scientists attempting to falsify a theory may not be free of bias; however, a strong sense of contempt for a theory can cause a scientist to strenuously work towards a successful falsification. Moreover, falsification is also a better criterion for demarcation than verifiability since scientists do not claim to discover the truth. It is important to note that although falsifiability is a prominent characteristic of science, it is not a sufficient lone criterion to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. For example, Rothbart cunningly suggests that an “account of an Alice in Wonderland universe purportedly describes certain specific events and therefore is falsifiable” (95). Such an absurd notion is obviously not scientific. In order to be deemed strongly falsifiable, a theory should be not only falsifiable in principle, but also falsifiable in practice. A theory does not necessarily have to be falsifiable at the present moment in order to be considered falsifiable. Not all theories that are only falsifiable in principle are pseudoscientific or unscientific. Nonetheless, the capability of a theory to be falsifiable in both principle and practice may indicate the presence of a stronger science than the ability of a theory to be falsified only in principle. It is simple to comprehend why falsifiability cannot be used as a lone criterion for demarcation. The line between falsifiable and unfalsifiable theories can be difficult to clearly define under some circumstances. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is undoubtedly a strongly falsifiable theory. The theory of general relativity proposes the concept of spacetime curvature (Ni 914). Among the most classic attempts to falsify the theory of general relativity is the examination of the perihelion advance of Mercury (Ni 902). This test demonstrates general relativity’s falsifiability since scientists are able to use the theory in order to calculate a precise measurement of the advancement of the perihelion that is attributable to the forces of general relativity. Scientists can then attempt to falsify the theory of general relativity by comparing the calculated values to the observed values. Fortunately, the value regarding the perihelion advance of Mercury that is calculated by general relativity is in agreement with the observed value. On the other hand, the philosophical theory of nihilism is not falsifiable. Nihilism suggests that life has no meaning and that “in our boredom we know ourselves as nothings” (Popper 194). According to Popper, this theory is easily classified as unfalsifiable because the 71 concepts involved are intangible (195).The status of falsifiability of the theory of evolution is questionable. Unlike the predictions made by the theory of general relativity, the predictions made by the theory of evolution cannot be tested in such a straightforward manner. If the fossil remains of a rabbit were found in the sediment layers of the Precambrian, the theory of evolution would essentially be falsified (Godfrey-Smith 72). Nevertheless, it would be impossible to ensure that all of the sediment layers of the Precambrian were studied and that the rocks were correctly dated in the first place. One would also have to accept the fact that some species that lived during the Precambrian may have decayed before they became fossilized. Thus, falsfiability should not be used as a lone demarcation criterion. Progress is a defining characteristic of genuine science. Progress can occur by cumulation, complication, and refinement (Quay 156). Cumulative progress is characterized by the construction